Would the City fans be against the prohibiting of state owned football clubs?

The fact they are allowed is protecting City and PSG and punishing those that aren't. If City fans want a fair playing field, they would agree to prohibit state owned football teams. City fans don't like rules that their club falls foul of.

Football is a game and at the heart of every game there are a series of made up rules that accompany them. It's tough shit I'm afraid. The courts won't do anything about it, football is a made up game.

The courts will frown upon the fact City tried to play along, accepted past discrecions and agreed deals with UEFA.

If they'd come out as soon as it was made and fought it, they would have more of a chance.

Click to expand...

Even as a United fan I have absolutely no problem with City's spending whatsoever.

How is Barcelona, Real Madrid, ourselves being able to outspend every club beneath us year after year a level playing field? Not only that, how is Barcelona, Real Madrid and ourselves being able to outspend those clubs INDEFINITELY fair as we prohibit the equalising investment from wealthy owners that bridge the gap? How does that encourage growth and competition within the game?

People on this forum whinge incessantly about Manchester City gaining an unfair advantage over us through their owners and ourselves being unable to compete with Manchester City's spending... bull. Even if they are diddling their accounts they still officially record their revenue as less than our own - we CAN outspend them, we SHOULD be outspending them, it's just that our unbelievably appalling owners choose to skim off the top for their own gain rather than investing what we earn. Whether Manchester City's owners are only at their club to improve their own image has no tangible impact on how they run the club - they are brilliant owners. We should be rising to meet them, not dragging them down.

There is an argument that mega-rich owners could ruin the game by simply outspending every other club that does not have a rich owner, but then you need to find a BALANCE to distinguish fair from unfair competition, and the current rules prohibiting any supplementary investment in the playing squad are so skewed on this scale it's unreal. A far fairer method would be that outside owners can spend an extra £100m per season up until their club starts making a certain amount of revenue, at which point it goes down to £75m, and incrementally so on. Saying they can't invest any of their money at all a la UEFA's FFP is abhorrent.

They got there by winning trophies and building their brand worldwide.
No sugar daddy's in those days.

Click to expand...

Most historical clubs had at one point a negative impact on football. Juventus with Calciopoli and links with the mafia, Real madrid and most spanish clubs were bailed out when their government erased tax debts, Bayern Munich uses its influence in Germany to systematically raid the best players in their league, Chelsea got lucky to find a sugar daddy before FPF (and english clubs benefit from lower corporate taxes) etc.

FPF is necessary, but it's also necessary to let new investors enter the game or it would mean that a new wealthy clubs should wait 40 years to win a title, it wouldn't make any sense. There's a balance to find.

Different scale of course, but he was the ultimate sugar daddy. Literally saved United from liquidation with his investment.

Click to expand...

I wish City fans would stop equating what Gibson did for us to what Mansour is doing at City. The two circumstances are vastly different. The difference is we didn't keep going back to Gibson every year asking for more money. We received an initial investment & then had to sort ourselves out to become self-sustaining. There is nothing wrong with this in my view. You have been receiving investment for 10 years & still show no signs of being able to support yourself. Your latest financials even state you are still heavily reliant on Mansours financial support.

I wish City fans would stop equating what Gibson did for us to what Mansour is doing at City. The two circumstances are vastly different. The difference is we didn't keep going back to Gibson every year asking for more money. We received an initial investment & then had to sort ourselves out to become self-sustaining. There is nothing wrong with this in my view. You have been receiving investment for 10 years & still show no signs of being able to support yourself. Your latest financials even state you are still heavily reliant on Mansours financial support.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, Manchester United has the highest debt (570M) in the world for a football club, so technically, you rely on bank money... The only difference being the fact that when they need money PSG or City go to their shareholders when Man Utd goes to a bank.

Well, to be fair, Manchester United has the highest debt (570M) in the world for a football club, so technically, you rely on bank money... The only difference being the fact that when they need money PSG or City go to their shareholders when Man Utd goes to a bank.

Click to expand...

What in hell's name are you talking about. We are a totally self-sufficient club. We do not receive any bank or sugar daddy investment. The debt we have is due to the Glazers lending from the banks to buy the club. The club was highly profitable & debt free before the Glazers buy out. We are still highly profitable & easily able to pay off the bank loans. The club is worth between £3 - 4 Bill on the open market. If the Glazers ran into difficulties it wouldn't be a problem. They could easily sell the club & still walk away with a tidy profit.

The situation with PSG & City is totally different. You were loss making clubs before the takeovers. You now have huge wage bills, outstanding transfer fees & various other liabilities. The ability to pay all this off is entirely dependent on your owners. If they decide they can't or won't pay then your lights go out.

That's only partially true, Man Utd debts was far lower 3 or 4 years ago, then it increased drastically because of the lack of ECL participation.

I've never said PSG or City are more profitable than United, i'm just saying you rely on bank money and like many companies, United would have to make sacrifices should the banks decide to pull the plug (very unlikely). Actually, the virtue of a well designed FPF would be to limit the dependance on shareholder and i totally admit that it would be problematic for us if Qatar was to leave suddenly. I'm really happy each an every time a outside sponsor replaces one from Qatar because it lowers this dependance. The probleme with the FPF the way it currently is, is the fact that when you buy a club, you don't even have a couple of years to invest to try to catch up, so you force investors to use strategies to circumvent the rules.

Don't get fooled, I'm a PSG fan, meaning I don't want my club to go bankrupt if Qatar leaves, I'm just saying it's ill-designed right now.

That's only partially true, Man Utd debts was far lower 3 or 4 years ago, then it increased drastically because of the lack of ECL participation.

I've never said PSG or City are more profitable than United, i'm just saying you rely on bank money and like many companies, United would have to make sacrifices should the banks decide to pull the plug (very unlikely). Actually, the virtue of a well designed FPF would be to limit the dependance on shareholder and i totally admit that it would be problematic for us if Qatar was to leave suddenly. I'm really happy each an every time a outside sponsor replaces one from Qatar because it lowers this dependance. The probleme with the FPF the way it currently is, is the fact that when you buy a club, you don't even have a couple of years to invest to try to catch up, so you force investors to use strategies to circumvent the rules.

Don't get fooled, I'm a PSG fan, meaning I don't want my club to go bankrupt if Qatar leaves, I'm just saying it's ill-designed right now.

Click to expand...

Huh?

When have United ever relied on large bank loans to fund transfers etc?

United's debt increased because of Brexit and the collapse of the pound.

That's only partially true, Man Utd debts was far lower 3 or 4 years ago, then it increased drastically because of the lack of ECL participation

Click to expand...

Without checking I'm assuming it's because of change in conversion rate, fall of Pound vs USD.

Well, to be fair, Manchester United has the highest debt (570M) in the world for a football club, so technically, you rely on bank money... The only difference being the fact that when they need money PSG or City go to their shareholders when Man Utd goes to a bank.

Most historical clubs had at one point a negative impact on football. Juventus with Calciopoli and links with the mafia, Real madrid and most spanish clubs were bailed out when their government erased tax debts, Bayern Munich uses its influence in Germany to systematically raid the best players in their league, Chelsea got lucky to find a sugar daddy before FPF (and english clubs benefit from lower corporate taxes) etc.

FPF is necessary, but it's also necessary to let new investors enter the game or it would mean that a new wealthy clubs should wait 40 years to win a title, it wouldn't make any sense. There's a balance to find.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, this shows what a lousy job italian media did to tell this story. Also calciopoli was a lot more complex affair than what the average sports media told.